get_object

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by listing the returned fields (type, owner, version, content JSON, digest) and the automatic extraction of NFT display metadata. It could be more thorough about error handling, but it clearly conveys the operational behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only two sentences, starts with the main action, and has no filler or redundant content. It is concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple get tool, the description adequately explains the output and special NFT handling. The parameter schema is comprehensive, and no output schema exists. It lacks sibling comparison guidance, but that is covered under usage guidelines. Overall, it is complete enough for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already contains full descriptions for all three parameters (object_id, network, version), so the description adds no additional parameter detail. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get a Sui object by its ID', which specifies the exact action and target. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_owned_objects and get_transaction by focusing on retrieving a single object by ID.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The usage is implied: use this when you have a specific object ID to fetch. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like list_owned_objects, nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.